Discussion on the Profound Deficiencies of Protestant Authority Structures (vs. Jonathan Deundian)

  Jonathan Deundian is an evangelical who states on his Facebook page that he is "about an inch away from becoming Catholic." This discussion took place on Facebook, on Ross Earl Hoffman's page. Jonathan's words will be in blue.
* * *
You write [citing original posting of someone else's thoughts by Ross]: "If two God loving Holy Spirit inspired Protestants read the Bible and come to opposite and mutually incompatible conclusions by what authority can one decide who is right?"

You resolve the issue in the same way you resolve all epistemic dilemmas--you establish good reasons to affirm one thing over another-that's the best one can do under those strict conditions. Demonstrable proofs aren't necessary and assertions aren't helpful.
Do you think when the church gathers to discuss critical issues concerning faith and morals that their conclusions are the product of rational reflection? I think even Dave Armstrong sees where I'm going with this and would agree. When serious conflicts were resolved, "reasons" played a part in decisions that were made. When a pope speaks ex cathedra, even he has reasons for conclusions he draws concerning faith and morals or else the conclusions he draws would be arbitrary. That's what rational creatures do, Ross.
We have the clear example of the Jerusalem Council in Scripture [Acts 15]. The decision was a joint result of reasoning, tradition, and guidance by the Holy Spirit. What is not mentioned is prooftexting from Scripture. Certainly Scripture was discussed (in what was not recorded) but from what we know, it was not central to the exclusion of everything else.

Catholicism is always "both/and." Scripture / Tradition / Church / Reason / Experience / Guidance by the Holy Spirit. Attempts to pit one against the other are silly and poor thinking (as well as poor exegesis).

Correct, but it's not as if the early church was simply asserting x, y, and z. Reasons played a significant role in their deliberation. . . . that polemic isn't a good strike against Protestantism. Perhaps Protestantism has its issues, I just fail to see that being one of them.

Roman Catholics like to point out that Protestant "private revelation" (as if Protestants are the only folks who form beliefs) is responsible for the splintering of the Church. Yet Protestants who are quick on their feet realize that among the denominations, Catholics are just one of the many. If one wants to poke at Protestants, they'd do good to stay on exegetical and traditional grounds. Those arguments are good (and inch me closer and closer to the Roman Catholic Church). The line of reasoning above can be flipped too easily. I think it's weak, and a poor use of philosophy.
It is indeed an issue, because reason alone (or Scripture alone) has not been shown to be sufficient in order to resolve endless Protestant internal contradictions. In that sense, tradition or Church authority of some sort is absolutely necessary. Protestantism's foundational principles can never, and never have in fact, brought about unity. It brings about, rather, theological relativism and sectarianism. Nothing is more obvious than that.

It's not that we denounce reason, but that Protestants denounce (in opposition to the Bible itself) binding, infallible Church authority and passed-down apostolic tradition. They have to (it's part of the very definition of sola Scriptura): this is what Luther's and Calvin's dissent presupposed from the beginning: no Church authority can bind them if they disagree. They simply proclaim themselves "God's man of the hour" and assume an ersatz, de facto "practical infallibility" and damn to hell all who disagree with their completely arbitrary, groundless pseudo-pseudo-"authority". Talk about logical absurdity . . .

When I say "reason" I don't mean "scripture." When I say reason I'm talking about rational reflection--thinking hard. I think we may be talking past each other.
But that's precisely [resolving conflicts through reason] what they have demonstrated that they cannot do! Reason alone is insufficient in such matters, because one person thinks it is reasonable to believe X, and the next thinks it is to believe contradictory proposition or doctrine Y. Therefore, it is necessary to have an authority over both, to determine who is right and who wrong (or possibly both wrong). We know both can't be right if they contradict.

Christianity is not reducible to philosophy. Faith goes beyond reason, without violating it. I know what you mean! I think you are mistaken. You are still laboring under fundamental Protestant epistemological and ecclesiological errors.

And by the way, when Protestants (the good ones) speak of sola scriptura they're not meaning solo scriptura eg. Bible onlyism. Heck, has anyone read Wright or Witherington or McKnight or Fee?
I know what sola Scriptura means. I've written two books on it (one just about to be released), and engaged in innumerable debates on the topic. Sola Scriptura, even properly defined according to the most sensible Protestant defenders of it, is still logically absurd and self-defeating, once closely scrutinized. This is always the case, and when I get Protestants (in debate) to the point of actually examining it in detail, right down to the bottom, they always split, because there is no good reply to Catholic criticisms of it.

How are epistemological issues resolved if papal infallibility is true? Insofar as there remain disputes, then we haven't resolved a thing.

I'm about to "split" here too, but that's only because I'm supposed to write something for someone.
Saved by the bell! ROFL
 
By "true" I meant "warranted true belief" (not certainly true), but I guess that's still incoherent since if I say papal infallibility is true, then I'm saying that it's necessarily true. LOL Let me think about it some more.
It's real simple: "the buck stops here." Under the proper conditions (solid tradition, sensus fidelium, etc.), the pope declares such-and-such and that ends the dispute, just as the Jerusalem Council resolved the issue of circumcision vis-a-vis Gentiles. There is a final say. Protestantism denies that because it denies the infallibility of Church and pope. Therefore, it is doomed to endless internal contradiction and sectarianism, due to having no definitive way to resolve conflicts.

The Catholic system is completely in harmony with the Bible. The Protestant system is not: it is (where wrong) late-arriving traditions of men (themselves condemned in Scripture).

Be honest Dave (I really need you to be honest), in addition to internal messy cases such as with Pope Honorius, have there been a variety of questionable doctrinal disputes within the church that undermine the doctrine of papal infallibility? Anything that makes you sweat just a little? 

I'm always honest! Papal infallibility was my biggest issue before I became a Catholic. I thought it was a manifestly ridiculous belief. Nothing that I'm aware of makes me "sweat." The so-called "best cases" (Honorius, Vigilius, Liberius) prove nothing: they are all easily refuted [see relevant articles on my Papacy page]. They don't disprove papal infallibility at all [see my new book, Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy ]. Thus, we see that if the "very best" counter-arguments that Protestants can muster up  abysmally fail, we recognize how very weak the "anti-papal" argument is. It's so bad that it is desperate; special pleading.

The more apologetics I do, the more confident I am of my Catholic faith. The more that our beliefs are challenged by Protestants and atheists alike, and the more closely I look into these issues and trumped-up "difficulties" -- the more I am confirmed yet again that Catholicism is profoundly true.

This is the particular blessing of being an apologist. Praise be to God! I try to pass on the arguments to others so they can have this confident assurance, too. God can grant us certitude in religious matters, by His grace. It's always grace in the end, not rational argumentation. And anyone who does apologetics must thoroughly understand that. 

* * *